US Supremes deal death blow to class action lawsuits

States' rights turned on their head


The US Supreme Court has granted a whopping victory to AT&T, the US Chamber of Commerce, and supportive corporations, by reversing previous court decisions that had prevented corporations from requiring individual arbitration of customers' complaint.

By issuing its 5-4 decision on Wednesday, the Court has essentially stripped away individuals' rights to band together in class-action lawsuits should a corporation choose to include an arbitration requirement in its contracts or licensing agreements.

At core, the Court has ordered that the decisions of the lower courts, which were based on a previous California Supreme Court decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, are preempted by the US Federal Arbitration Act – a sort of states-rights-in-reverse decision by the Court's conservative majority.

The Court's 18-page decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, who also supplied his own six-page concurring opinion. Justice Steven Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, provided a 12-page dissenting opinion.

The lawsuit that wound its way through lower courts only to finally make it to the black-robed justices in Washington DC was fundamentally a dumb one – and a textbook case in how a seemingly insignificant issue can morph into a dispute with a much more far-reaching effect.

In early 2002, California residents Vincent and Liza Concepcion signed up with AT&T Mobility. In 2006, the Concepcions took advantage of an AT&T service that advertised free phones, but for which AT&T charged the Concepcions $30.22 in sales tax for those handsets. The couple then filed a complaint with the US District Court for the Southern District of California, and their complaint was soon lumped into a larger "putative class action", as the US Supreme Court called it, which among other things charged AT&T with false advertising – and the saga began.

The contract that the Concepcions had signed had buried deep inside it the requirement that any such complaints would be handled in one-on-one arbitration. In response to the Concepcions moving their complaint into a class action, AT&T called upon the district court to compel arbitration. That court denied AT&T's motion, saying that the arbitration agreement was "unconscionable and unlawfully exculpatory under California law because it disallowed classwide procedures."

An appeals court upheld the district court's ruling, and AT&T took the matter to the US Supreme Court – which is how $30.22 became the beginning of the end for class-action complaints against corporate entities who'd prefer to shield themselves from them by requiring one-on-one arbitration.

And what corporation wouldn't? A study reported by the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has shown that businesses prevailed a rather impressive 96.8 per cent of the time in "Business-initiated contract cases handled by the National Arbitration Forum in which an arbitrator was appointed."

As TechDirt's legal-issues blogger – the even-handed Mike Masnick – points out, businesses get to choose or approve the arbitrator in the vast majority of such arbitrations. "Unlike the court system, the arbitrator is being paid for by the parties," Masnick writes, "and if that arbitrator wants to get more business, he or she is going to view the party likely to hire him or her in the future more favorably."

Class-action suits, on the other hand, are commonly trial-by-jury affairs, and juries tend to be far more sympathetic to stories of the "little guy" being railroaded by "big money".

AT&T told CBS news that the Supreme Court's ruling was a victory for consumers. "We value our customers, and AT&T's arbitration program is free, fair, fast, easy to use, and consumer-friendly," the company said.

Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen was less sanguine. "The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts," he said.

In his dissent, Jusctice Breyer wrote that "the Court is wrong to hold that the federal Act pre-empts the rule of state law," and that "we should think more than twice before invalidating a state law..."

More specifically, Breyer argues that "California is free to define unconscionability as it sees fit, and its common law is of no federal concern so long as the State does not adopt a special rule that disfavors arbitration."

We find it ironic that at a time when the US Chamber or Commerce and other conservative organizations are using states'-rights arguments against the Obama Administration's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which they shorten to the pejorative of "Obamacare", the conservative wing of the US Supreme Court, joined by putative centrist Justice Kennedy, has voted to invalidate a state law – and, by extension, all such state laws – that is objectionable to a large swath of corporate America. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • EnemyBot malware adds enterprise flaws to exploit arsenal
    Fast-evolving botnet targets critical VMware, F5 BIG-IP bugs, we're told

    The botnet malware EnemyBot has added exploits to its arsenal, allowing it to infect and spread from enterprise-grade gear.

    What's worse, EnemyBot's core source code, minus its exploits, can be found on GitHub, so any miscreant can use the malware to start crafting their own outbreaks of this software nasty.

    The group behind EnemyBot is Keksec, a collection of experienced developers, also known as Nero and Freakout, that have been around since 2016 and have launched a number of Linux- and Windows-based bots capable of launching distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and possibly mining cryptocurrency. Securonix first wrote about EnemyBot in March.

    Continue reading
  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Updated Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading
  • UK Supreme Court snubs Assange anti-extradition bid
    Home Secretary ponders putting WikiLeaker on one-way US flight

    Julian Assange has all but lost his fight against extradition from Britain to America after the UK Supreme Court said his case "did not raise an arguable point of law."

    The former WikiLeaks chief's future now rests in the tender hands of British Home Secretary Priti Patel, who must formally decide whether or not to extradite him for trial in the US.

    American prosecutors want the Australian in court over a multitude of espionage charges, including one alleging that he commissioned the cracking of a password protecting US Department of Defense files from unauthorized access.

    Continue reading
  • Alphabet still can't kill off Google+ insecurity lawsuit
    You forgot about this social network? A small army of lawyers haven't

    On Monday the US Supreme Court turned down Alphabet's request to hear it argue for the dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit that claimed Google quietly covered up a security issue that could have exposed almost 500,000 Google+ accounts.

    A lawsuit filed in 2018 accused the search giant of deceiving investors by failing to disclose details of a design blunder in an API for its now-defunct social network Google+. It was estimated that 438 third-party apps could have siphoned off information, such as people's email addresses, genders, and ages, via the privacy shortcoming in the API.

    It was believed as many as 500,000 users could have had their info obtained through this bug, though it's not thought any data actually leaked. Google secretly patched the hole, and everything was hunky-dory until the Wall Street Journal blew the lid off the saga. Google's share price dropped sharply at the disclosure, prompting investors to sue its parent biz Alphabet for failing to disclose the issue.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft pushes ahead adapting Azure for 5G telecoms after swallowing AT&T's Network Cloud
    But is the telco backing itself into a corner?

    Analysis Microsoft has given more info on its efforts to draw telcos to its Azure cloud platform, building on intellectual property and skills gained from last year's partnership with AT&T, under which the telco opted to move its core 5G network operations to Azure.

    Microsoft announced Azure for Operators in 2020, saying it was adding capabilities to its cloud to support carrier-grade network operations such as low-latency connectivity and network slicing. The idea was that telcos would be able to take advantage of the elastic capabilities of the cloud and reduce the need to invest so much capital expenditure in new infrastructure for their 5G rollouts, in much the same way that enterprise customers have adopted the technology.

    This clearly appealed to AT&T, because in June last year it announced it was not only moving its 5G mobile network to Azure, but also providing Microsoft access to its IP and technical expertise. This included handing over the Network Cloud platform it had developed to operate its 5G services to the Windows giant, along with any of the engineering team willing to transfer to Redmond.

    Continue reading
  • Google swats away £3bn Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie lawsuit in Supreme Court victory
    Campaigners' case had 'no real prospect of success'

    Google has successfully fought off a £3bn lawsuit brought in London over ad tracking cookies, beating the Google You Owe Us campaign in the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

    The case, brought in 2017, had "no real prospect of success", the Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning, in a devastating blow for organisations hoping it would create new law allowing them to easily launch opt-out class action lawsuits against companies who leak user data or whose data stores are broken into.

    Former Which? director Richard Lloyd was the frontman of the case. He lost because his legal team filed suit against Google "without attempting to show that any wrongful use was made by Google of personal data relating to that individual or that the individual suffered any material damage or distress as a result of a breach", as the court ruled.

    Continue reading
  • No return of the JEDI: Supreme Court declines to hear Oracle's challenge to now-dead cloud deal
    Blown up like a Death Star

    The US Supreme Court has brushed off Oracle’s complaint that it wasn't awarded the Pentagon's $10bn winner-takes-all Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud contract.

    On Monday, the top judges declined to hear the database giant's case filed back in January. At the time, the Dept of Defense hadn’t yet cancelled its ten-year mega-IT deal that was awarded to Microsoft in 2019. Oracle and Amazon Web Services protested and attempted to overturn that decision by suing the federal government.

    Oracle claimed it was unfair for the DoD to award the contract to a sole company, and that there were clear conflicts of interests in the procurement process since AWS was actively trying to recruit a government employee handling the negotiations.

    Continue reading
  • US Supreme Court rules teens cussing out schools on social media is protected speech
    F-bomb tirade cheerleader triumphs over school board in landmark First Amendment case

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers cussing out public high schools on social media is protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, so long as it doesn't include threats, bullying or anything that disrupts the operation of the school.

    The case stemmed from an outburst made by Brandi Levy on a private Snapchat group when she was a 14-year-old ninth-grader in 2017, after she failed to gain a spot on the varsity cheerleading squad at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.

    Her sweary reaction to not making the team – “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything," accompanied by a picture of Levy and a friend with their middle fingers raised – made its way to one of the school's cheerleading coaches after one of the recipients took a screenshot of the image and distributed it.

    Continue reading
  • Hey, AT&T, you ripped off our smartwatch-phone group call tech – and we want our $1bn, say entrepreneur pair
    Seattle duo go back to court demanding promised royalties

    AT&T has been sued by two Seattle entrepreneurs who accused the telecoms giant of stealing their technology and launching a rip-off version to avoid paying massive royalty fees.

    They now want $1.35bn for breach of contract and patent infringement: $450m in unpaid royalties and triple damages for "willful and egregious infringement." And the unfortunate reality for AT&T is that the duo look like they have a good case.

    John Wantz and Kyle Schei were college friends who devised, in 2012, a way to group or pool together phone numbers. Calls placed to a number in the pool could be redirected to another member of the group automatically, and calls originating from the group could be made to appear from any of the group's numbers. The idea being that, say, a child only has to remember – or store in their phone – one number in a group, and when they call it, the system would automatically pass it around the pool until someone answered.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022